If you really want to know how a jury could convict Frank Gable it’s due to intentionally poor investigations, and in Frank’s case, the unwillingness of the prosecution to let the jury hear ALL of the evidence. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? Shouldn’t the jury hear all evidence and decide whether it’s relevant or not?

What’s the point of having a jury who only hears what the prosecution wants them to hear?

Why should the prosecution be allowed to argue whether or not the jury hears this or that? Why would the prosecution want to withhold evidence that the jury may consider as "reasonable doubt?" Isn’t it obvious?

Because they want to win their case, regardless if the defendant is innocent. It seems so obvious, otherwise they’d have no problem letting the jury hear "third party guilt" evidence or anything that offers reasonable doubt. How can this be considered fair? How can the Appellate Court refuse to overturn Frank’s conviction knowing that evidence like this was withheld from the jury?

I’ll tell ya why. Because 17 years later this argument has never been heard by an appellate court. Imagine that!

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR #3 AT FRANK’S POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS…

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER’S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE WHEN THEY FAILED TO ADEQUATELY DEVELOP, INVESTIGATE, AND PRODUCE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL, INCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH FRANCKE, THAT TIMOTHY NATIVIDAD KILLED THE VICTIM.

The Appellate court ruled correctly on this assignment of error. Frank’s trial counsel did indeed devolop, investigate, and attempt to produce evidence at trial that Natividad was the killer. TWICE! It’s not their fault that the prosecution asked that none of that evidence be allowed to be presented in court, and that the trial judge, C. Greg West, ruled in favor of the prosecution.

The assignment of error should’ve pertained to Judge West’s ruling that none of the evidence should be admitted at trial. That’s where the error occurred. Frank’s appellate lawyers have to petition the court to address the proper argument. It’s the responsibility of the appellate court to simply address the motions before them. Not to do the work the lawyer should be doing.

I’m beginning to feel Frank’s appellate lawyers have been much more ineffective than Frank’s trial counsel.

I’m hoping Nell Brown and company are planning to argue this issue at the federal level, but unfortunately Frank’s appellate status is in pause mode due to Ken Hadley’s failure to file an appeal on time. All last year, and probably most of this year will have been wasted because of Hadley’s error. The federal appeal status is "stayed" until the resentencing issue is resolved.